Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022

1. Bombay High Court Orders Constitution of Medical Boards For Medical Termination Of Pregnancy As Mandated under the MTP Act Case Title: XXX vs State of Maharashtra Case No: Writ Petition (L) NO.31015 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 1 The Bombay High Court has directed the state Government to forthwith constitute medical boards based on the Amended Act on medical termination of pregnancy so as to not cause hardships to women seeking termination of pregnancy. The bench observed that Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 has increased the limitation to undergo medical termination of pregnancy from the earlier 20 weeks to 24 weeks. It further added that section 3(2B), in fact, carved out an exception in cases of foetal abnormalities and did not limit such termination to the 24 weeks period otherwise provided in the subsection. 2. 'Nobody Has A Fundamental Right To A Public Holiday': Bombay High Court Case Title: Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia & Anr Vs The Hon'ble Administrator Union Territory & Ors. Case No: Writ Petition (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) - 9602 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 2 The Bombay High Court has held that declaring a public holiday is a matter of governmental policy, and there is nobody can claim a fundamental right to public holidays. A Divison Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed, "There is no legally enforceable right that can be said to have been infringed. Nobody has a fundamental right to a public holiday." 3. IBC & Admiralty Act Interplay - Insolvency Proceedings Against Shipping Company Won't Bar Suit Against Vessel : Bombay High Court Case Title: Angre Port Private Ltd. Vs. TAG 15 (IMO. 9705550) & Anr Case No: COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT(L) NO. 4 OF 2020 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 3 In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has held that a Shipping Company slipping into liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will not impact an ongoing Admiralty Suit against its Vessel as the two are separate entities. The judgement authored by Justice BP Colabawalla explains the interplay between the bar against further suits and proceedings under S.33 (5) of the IBC, 2016 and the Admiralty Act and the effect that insolvency proceedings would have on admiralty claims. The judgement also holds that Penal Birth Hire charger are not in the nature of a penalty and therefore damages would not have to be proved as required under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. 4. S 12 -Legal Representative Cannot Seek Compensation Under Domestic Violence Act AfterWoman's Demise – Bombay High Court Case Title: Ms. Kanaka Kedar Sapre & Mrs. Sudha Mukund Shukla (Mother) vs . Kedar Narhar Sapre & others Case No: Cri WP 2790 of 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 4 The Bombay High Court ruled that an aggrieved person, as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), "must be alive at the time of filing of the petition", and someone cannot file an application for monetary reliefs under the act after her demise. The court dismissed an application filed by a minor girl (through her maternal grandmother) "on behalf of her mother" seeking monetary reliefs, streedhan and compensation against her father and paternal grandparents. 5. Lok Adalat Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Relating To Offences If No Settlement Is Arrived At: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd v Badrinath Pema Rathod Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 5In a significant judgement explaining the interplay of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the Electricity Act, 2003 a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court noted that where a dispute brought before the Permanent Lok Adalat amounts to a compoundable offence it can be entertained by the Permanent Lok Adalat for the purpose of effecting a conciliation and settlement. But if the conciliation fails, then it is not within the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the matter on merits, if it relates to an offence, despite the offence being compoundable. 6. COVID-Supreme Court Order Suspending Limitation Is Applicable For Refund Under GST Act – Bombay High Court Case Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr. Case No: WPL 1275 of 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6 The Bombay HC quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act. A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed that the Supreme Court's decision from March 2020, extending the time limit prescribed under the general or special laws, for proceedings due...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags